Carn:Aristocles: Carn: Can we be done with Zimmerman? I'm damn tired of hearing about him. Let's talk about good beers for summer. I just bought a Widmer sampler and I like their Rotator IPA and Alchemy Ale.

What's the IPA? I remember have one of their rotator series (I think it was Rye IPA) and it was pretty good. Then I tried a different one that was brewed with grapefruit peel and it was trash.

It's actually a lager (pilsner maybe?) that they hopified. It's not extremely hoppy and very refreshing. There were four in the pack - the other two were their standard hefeweisen which I'm not big on as a style, and citra blond which is pretty good too.

For some reason the weather dropped from the upper 90s to the low 80s in my area so I'm starting to drink Hefe and I'm looking for a good Marzen cuz I think it's Oktoberfest already. Currently I have some Harpoon Summer Ale (decent) and some Paulaner Hefe (pretty good) at home waiting for me. I'll need to check out that Rotator, though, if it's a pils, it might be good for doing yard work or grilling.

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have defended himself against an attackerkilled an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

TheEdibleSnuggie:DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have killed an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

According to the jury, he killed his attacker in self defense. And I'm not a Zimmerman "supporter", just a logical person.

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have defended himself against an attacker killed an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

Oh look, he had a motive in killing someone. That's almost like everyone who's ever killed anyone. We know he had a tough choice at the time. We know the jury had to rule on that information. A person died, and there's a gleeful bunch of people going "kill some more!!!!"

Lord Apathy:Aristocles:Total Wine was selling 120 Minute for $10 a bottle (12oz bottle), I was curious so I gave it a try, now I want my $10 back. But I've been enjoying Lost Rhino's IceBreaker IPA, growler refills $2 off on Sundays.

Nothing worse than local brands that are bad, well except for that swill they sell in the beer cave. If you can see through it, then it isn't worth drinking.

The local brand (Lost Rhino) is pretty good, but the Dogfish Head 120 minute was a let down. I don't see what all the hype's about.

Aristocles:Carn: Aristocles: Carn: Can we be done with Zimmerman? I'm damn tired of hearing about him. Let's talk about good beers for summer. I just bought a Widmer sampler and I like their Rotator IPA and Alchemy Ale.

What's the IPA? I remember have one of their rotator series (I think it was Rye IPA) and it was pretty good. Then I tried a different one that was brewed with grapefruit peel and it was trash.

It's actually a lager (pilsner maybe?) that they hopified. It's not extremely hoppy and very refreshing. There were four in the pack - the other two were their standard hefeweisen which I'm not big on as a style, and citra blond which is pretty good too.

For some reason the weather dropped from the upper 90s to the low 80s in my area so I'm starting to drink Hefe and I'm looking for a good Marzen cuz I think it's Oktoberfest already. Currently I have some Harpoon Summer Ale (decent) and some Paulaner Hefe (pretty good) at home waiting for me. I'll need to check out that Rotator, though, if it's a pils, it might be good for doing yard work or grilling.

Here too (Falls Church). Yesterday the high was maybe 80. It's supposed to be fairly mild and below average on the 10 day forecast too. Bout time we got a break after 10 years of melting hot summers.

I've been thinking about marzen too, but that's one of my favorites. Hopefully gonna brew one next weekend.

Nothing unexpected. The next thing he should do is make some appearances at gun shows. Maybe do some speaking engagements. And if he hasn't already started negotiating his book deal yet, he'd better get on that.

The money train is waiting, but it won't wait forever. The time to start cashing in is now.

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have defended himself against an attacker killed an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

Oh look, he had a motive in killing someone. That's almost like everyone who's ever killed anyone. We know he had a tough choice at the time. We know the jury had to rule on that information. A person died, and there's a gleeful bunch of people going "kill some more!!!!"

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have killed an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

According to the jury, he killed his attacker in self defense. And I'm not a Zimmerman "supporter", just a logical person.

We know why he did it. The supporters are the douchebags who are super enthusiastic about more guns and more killing of black people. You can go back through all the threads on this on fark. I've never been a "railroad zimmerman" person. But the active supporters are KKK wannabes. There's a line between "shiat that's tough; Zimmerman made a series of poor choices none of which were illegal or strictly immoral" and "fark yeah, zimmerman's in the right, that thug had it comming"

I've been thinking about marzen too, but that's one of my favorites. Hopefully gonna brew one next weekend.

How difficult is that to do? I've been thinking about rolling my own beer for awhile now. Might as well since my career in politics was short lived. I only had one person vote for me and even she thought I was to much of an ass. Thanks mom.

hardinparamedic:Wangiss: How dare we glorify your right to self-defense! It's a bad thing!

I think I found the problem in your statement. You should be glorifying avoiding the need to use your right to self-defense.

The fact that when you exercise that right, at least one person ends up dead, and two lives end up destroyed should give you pause in your zealousness. There's a difference in being PREPARED to defend yourself, and in going out and actively seeking out situations which give you justification to use it.

Do you pretend to know that that's what happened in this case?Me, I'm okay with a neighborhood watchman defending himself from lethal force. I actually do think that's good. If the testimony accepted by the jury is correct, he was assaulted for doing nothing more than his normal duty--things like asking what a person is doing out at night in your neighborhood when there's been a rash of break-ins is a legal, even neighborly thing to do. It's sad he was assaulted. It's sad someone felt the need to do that. It's not sad that he defended himself with lethal force when (again, assuming the accepted testimony is correct) he was having lethal force used against him. That's the natural right to self defense, which is nothing more than a corollary of the right to life, which is a very important part of our nation's heritage, and in many Americans' opinions, worthy of glorification.

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have defended himself against an attacker killed an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

Oh look, he had a motive in killing someone. That's almost like everyone who's ever killed anyone. We know he had a tough choice at the time. We know the jury had to rule on that information. A person died, and there's a gleeful bunch of people going "kill some more!!!!"

Gleeful? "Kill some more"? Are you drunk?

That's pretty farking apparent that they're "sticking it to the libs" here. You see this mentality all the damn time in tea-party types, and it's farking sick.

TheEdibleSnuggie:DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

DubyaHater:TheEdibleSnuggie: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

Regardless of the assertions of "self defense", this is one clear case that if there were one specific less legal gun in the country there would be one less corpse.

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have defended himself against an attacker killed an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

Oh look, he had a motive in killing someone. That's almost like everyone who's ever killed anyone. We know he had a tough choice at the time. We know the jury had to rule on that information. A person died, and there's a gleeful bunch of people going "kill some more!!!!"

Not at all. There's a bunch of people going, you don't have to give up your right to defend yourself just because you've defended yourself once before!Self defense is not like a one and done thing.

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have killed an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

According to the jury, he killed his attacker in self defense. And I'm not a Zimmerman "supporter", just a logical person.

We know why he did it. The supporters are the douchebags who are super enthusiastic about more guns and more killing of black people. You can go back through all the threads on this on fark. I've never been a "railroad zimmerman" person. But the active supporters are KKK wannabes. There's a line between "shiat that's tough; Zimmerman made a series of poor choices none of which were illegal or strictly immoral" and "fark ...

Anyone banging my head against the pavement has it coming. Prior to lethal force, though: yeah, a fist-fight you can run away from isn't grounds for a shooting.

Look up 'providing material support to a terrorist organization'. And 'conspiracy'. So no, just sending someone money is not fine unless you fully disclaim knowledge of what the money will be used for. And even then it can backfire in terrorist cases.

It isn't a conspiracy unless he announced his intent to try to get a gun and kill someone. Getting sent money for an alarm, or gun, for self defense purposes when he still legally has a permit to posess and carry a handgun does not make someone liable just because they sent him money. Reread what is in bold a few times. Then read it again. It doesn't matter if you throw around words like terrorosm and all that, because that has nothing to do with this. I can see you're having a litle trouble with logic though :)

If he used his own money to buy a new gun, would the entire justice department be liable since they didn't take away his legal permit to own one? after all, by your logic they are just enabling him, aren't they?

It's the fact that they're specifically arming someone they know to have defended himself against an attacker killed an innocent person. Understanding that sometimes making tough choices in dangerous situations is protected by law is different that actively encouraging a person to kill again. Zimmerman was a tough case, Zimmerman's active "supporters" are universally bad human beings.

Oh look, he had a motive in killing someone. That's almost like everyone who's ever killed anyone. We know he had a tough choice at the time. We know the jury had to rule on that information. A person died, and there's a gleeful bunch of people going "kill some more!!!!"

Not at all. There's a bunch of people going, you don't have to give up your right to defend yourself just because you've defended yourself once before!Self defense is not like a one and done thing.

That stupid, idiotic right hasn't even remotely been infringed. This is a clear case of people wanting to cause more of the same: namely people being shot. I dare you to go to a site like the tea-party community and see what people say should be done. It's not "kill less people".

I've been thinking about marzen too, but that's one of my favorites. Hopefully gonna brew one next weekend.

How difficult is that to do? I've been thinking about rolling my own beer for awhile now. Might as well since my career in politics was short lived. I only had one person vote for me and even she thought I was to much of an ass. Thanks mom.

Not too hard at all though you will want to start with ales because they ferment at typical room temperatures (usually 65-75). To do lagers you need a spare fridge or other cooling chamber and a compressor controller which they sell for like 40-50 bucks. Although some people do a lager kit but just ferment room temp and it still comes out pretty tasty, although not as smooth and crisp as a true lager. There are tons of different kits for damn near any type of beer, plus specific ones by different breweries. You just need a big pot and a starter kit that runs about $50-$100 which will have a bucket, thermometer and other stuff, and a beer kit which start around $30 and go up from there depending on how many extra ingredients they have. Check for brew stores near you or if there aren't any check out Northern Brewer or sites like that.

Carn:Wangiss: Carn: Can we be done with Zimmerman? I'm damn tired of hearing about him. Let's talk about good beers for summer. I just bought a Widmer sampler and I like their Rotator IPA and Alchemy Ale.

Did your link get disapproved?

haha, no link, but maybe there's a beer one. To the interwebs!

I'll be checking the Geek tab for your beer link, should you find one.

ikanreed:DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

Regardless of the assertions of "self defense", this is one clear case that if there were one specific less legal gun in the country there would be one less corpse.

Because M was just going to stop banging Z's head against the pavement out of the kindness of his soul? He didn't stop once he had a chance to run away; he didn't stop once he had the upper hand. What makes you 100% sure M wasn't going to finish Z off? If Z had few fewer constitution points, he'd have died from what he'd sustained already. Lethal force is lethal.

Wangiss:Because M was just going to stop banging Z's head against the pavement out of the kindness of his soul? He didn't stop once he had a chance to run away; he didn't stop once he had the upper hand. What makes you 100% sure M wasn't going to finish Z off? If Z had few fewer constitution points, he'd have died from what he'd sustained already. Lethal force is lethal.

Actually, the point of lethal force, according to the defense was when M went for zimmerman's gun. Funny how that escalated matters, huh?

If the justice department took away the gun I used to murd...uh protect myself, I wouldn't worry. I have 32 more. I can defend myself 31 more times, and still have a gun to protect myself from angry families.

ikanreed:Wangiss: Because M was just going to stop banging Z's head against the pavement out of the kindness of his soul? He didn't stop once he had a chance to run away; he didn't stop once he had the upper hand. What makes you 100% sure M wasn't going to finish Z off? If Z had few fewer constitution points, he'd have died from what he'd sustained already. Lethal force is lethal.

Actually, the point of lethal force, according to the defense was when M went for zimmerman's gun. Funny how that escalated matters, huh?

I don't find it funny. I also think they could have made a case for concrete-as-a-lethal-weapon if they had to.

Aristocles:Carn: Wangiss: Carn: Can we be done with Zimmerman? I'm damn tired of hearing about him. Let's talk about good beers for summer. I just bought a Widmer sampler and I like their Rotator IPA and Alchemy Ale.

Did your link get disapproved?

haha, no link, but maybe there's a beer one. To the interwebs!

I'll be checking the Geek tab for your beer link, should you find one.

ikanreed:Wangiss: ikanreed: shiat like this is why we know that guns-rights people are just have a secret dream of killing minorities without repercussions.

You know their real hearts, even if they don't. Everything you read reinforces your ideology because it's the truth.

No, it's because guns aren't a fundamental right, have nothing to do with being human...

Actually, I'm going to say that you're right about this: gun rights, in particular, are not a fundamental human right. However, they emerge logically, inevitably, and undeniably from the application of two fundamental human rights to one another (self-defense and equal protection of the laws) in the current social/technological climate. You might call them an "emergent human rights" for that reason, but that makes them no less inalienable or important for any civilized society.

...and everything to do with adolescent power fantasies.

We get it. You're scared. But fear has no place in a discussion of rights.

Real rights protect your right to be your own person.

Which can, in some very dark and sad circumstances, include killing someone who is trying to violate them.

ikanreed:Wangiss: Because M was just going to stop banging Z's head against the pavement out of the kindness of his soul? He didn't stop once he had a chance to run away; he didn't stop once he had the upper hand. What makes you 100% sure M wasn't going to finish Z off? If Z had few fewer constitution points, he'd have died from what he'd sustained already. Lethal force is lethal.

Actually, the point of lethal force, according to the defense was when M went for zimmerman's gun. Funny how that escalated matters, huh?

...which is, incidentally, our only indication of any point when Martin knew Zimmerman had a weapon at all. Remove it, and you remove any reason for Martin to fear for his life, which destroys any self-defense claim he would otherwise have had.

Wangiss:ikanreed: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

Regardless of the assertions of "self defense", this is one clear case that if there were one specific less legal gun in the country there would be one less corpse.

Because M was just going to stop banging Z's head agai ...

I wonder what would have happened if Zimmerman decided to stay in his car and not play Dirty Harry that day.

IRQ12:Everyone should be appalled at the DoJ getting involved in this, regardless of your feelings on the topic.

Well...unless you want the DoJ to act on how many FB likes or twitter votes they get on an incident.

The only way the DoJ should be involved or FB/Twitter be a factor is if the DoJ is going to investigate all the death threats and seditious posts that went up on social media. Any takers on the likelihood of that happening?

ikanreed:DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

Regardless of the assertions of "self defense", this is one clear case that if there were one specific less legal gun in the country there would be one less corpse.

Assuming Martin didn't end up killing Zimmerman. Slamming someone's head against a sidewalk can do that you know. I'm not saying that is what would have happened, but if you're presuming Zimmerman caused everything, then you are also presuming Martin did nothing wrong. That isn't the case (at least that anyone can prove.) He was found not guilty, which means that a jury that had more upfront, direct and personal access to the evidence than any of us will ever have found he acted in self defense. The situation sucks all around, but don't pretend that "If only...everything would have been sunshine and rainbows", because that is pretty much baseless.

DubyaHater:Wangiss: ikanreed: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

Regardless of the assertions of "self defense", this is one clear case that if there were one specific less legal gun in the country there would be one less corpse.

Because M was just going to stop banging Z's ...

If a women is getting raped and kills her rapist during the attack, do you ponder what would have happened if she hadn't left her house dressed so provocatively that day?

AngryDragon:IRQ12: Everyone should be appalled at the DoJ getting involved in this, regardless of your feelings on the topic.

Well...unless you want the DoJ to act on how many FB likes or twitter votes they get on an incident.

The only way the DoJ should be involved or FB/Twitter be a factor is if the DoJ is going to investigate all the death threats and seditious posts that went up on social media. Any takers on the likelihood of that happening?

In a society that truly respects freedom of speech and thought, "sedition" is a null word. Nominally, it is null in the USA.

DubyaHater:Wangiss: ikanreed: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

Regardless of the assertions of "self defense", this is one clear case that if there were one specific less legal gun in the country there would be one less corpse.

Because M was just going to stop banging Z's ...

I wonder what would have happened if Martin just kept walking instead of going back that day?

I'm not defending Zimmerman, I'm sick of hearing both sides. Team Trayvon is completely nuts too.

DubyaHater:TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's what I would expect unarmed women to react..just call the men with the guns and hide in fear till they show up...weak americans

Farkage:Assuming Martin didn't end up killing Zimmerman. Slamming someone's head against a sidewalk can do that you know. I'm not saying that is what would have happened

Actually, it probably would have. As a quick aside, if Pierce Morgan's interview with Rachel Jeantel is any interview, Martin may honestly have not known that slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete could kill him. That would make him unlikely to stop doing it, not because of any malice, but because it wouldn't have occurred to him that he was doing anything truly dangerous.

DubyaHater:These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

I think that it is their wet dream to shoot someone who breaking down the door to their sacred, special place.

Farkage:It was money, not a weapon. You have to get the gun through a legal transfer. Anyone sending someone money is fine. Regarding anyone selling him the gun, who knows, but since he was found not giulty and still has a valid permit I'd say they are fine as well.

Excellent point, and they no doubt are completely familiar with their rights and how to limit liability in such situations. He may be a thug-slaying hero but they're not crazy, after all.

SithLord:Here's a proposal - George Zimmerman gets to shoot Ariel Castro and redeem himself in the media. Can we at least agree to that?

Ariel Castro was thoughtful enough to remind us all just how audacious someone can be to proclaim their innocence. With GZ there was limited evidence, a lot of gray area about aggression, so yeah even without hindsight his plea of "not guilty" makes sense. Ariel Castro is basically saying I didn't do any of that sh*t and that is completely mind blowing.